Hacker News Reader

Comment by moduspol | Hacker News Reader

> I'm also quite skeptical of the "slippery slope"-style argument regarding IP connectivity. The number of available ISPs, web hosts, domain registrars, etc is pretty large.

We've already seen the goalposts move when AWS and CDNs were dropping politically unpopular clients.

If it helps, we're already pretty close to the end of the slope. There's a very limited number of last-mile ISPs, so we're only one Twitter mob / protest away from Comcast / Verizon / Cox / AT&T holding press conferences about how they're blocking politically problematic domains and IP addresses. Then it'll only be tech-savvy users with VPNs that can access "free speech," at least until those become the target of the mob, too.

View on HN

I disagree that we're close to the end of the slope, but I guess if you're right we'll find out soon enough.

I'm not a libertarian by any means but I do have some amount of faith that if what you're describing comes to pass, the free market will provide alternatives, if demand exists. VPNs are one such alternative.

I truly believe that it's harmful to society to guarantee free reach to everyone. It's kind of like the paradox of tolerance, if you've heard of that -- if private entities are barred from moderating content on their systems, the discourse will devolve more than it already has into conspiracy, hate, and other forms of unwanted content.

I don't think that the argument is that no platforms should be able to moderate. Moderation is a high value activity that is hard to do well.

The argument is that moderation should be done by publishing companies and who face liability for their content. It should not be done poorly, en-mass by platform companies who do it at scale using automation and don't face legal liability when they mess up.

The only exception I see to this is to allow community organized and run moderation for noncommercial communities.

If publishing companies were liable for their content wouldn't they censor more?

> If publishing companies were liable for their content wouldn't they censor more?

They would - and and they are. That's why it's easier to publish fanfic on the internet than with an actual publisher. Tumblr is not on the hook for unauthorized titillating usage of copyrighted Disney characters, but HarperCollins would get sued to bankruptcy if they attempted the same. This is why the calls to repeal section 319 is idiotic - it will lead to more "censorship"

Publishing companies are already liable for their content.

The argument is that, instead, these other, non-publishing, major communication platforms should be treated how we run other major communication platforms in the past, such as the telephone network.

We have existing laws, that could be extend to cover other communication platforms.

Telephone companies have been required to do certain things for decades, and the world hasn't collapsed because of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com